Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing (대한간호학회지)

Korean Society of Nursing Science (한국간호과학회)
권호 표지

Trends of Doctoral Dissertations in Nursing Science: Focused on Studies Submitted Since 2000

간호학 박사학위 논문의 최근 탐구 경향: 2000년 이후 논문 분석

  • 신현숙 (경희대학교 간호과학대학.동서간호학 연구소) ;
  • 성경미 (아주대학교 간호학과) ;
  • 정석희 (서울여자간호대학) ;
  • 김대란 (계명대학교 간호대학)
  • Published : 2008.02.29
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to identify the characteristics of doctoral dissertations in nursing science submitted since 2000. Method: Three-hundred and five dissertations of six schools of nursing published from 2000 to 2006 in Korea were analyzed with the categories of philosophy, method, body of knowledge, research design, and nursing domain, Result: In philosophy, 82% of all dissertations were identified as scientific realism, 15% were relativism, and 3% were practicism. Two-hundred and fifty dissertations (82%) were divided into a quantitative methodology and 55 dissertations (18%) were qualitative methodology. Specifically, 45% were experimental, 23% methodological, 13% survey and 17% qualitative designed researches. Prescriptive knowledge was created in 47% of dissertations, explanatory knowledge in 29%, and descriptive knowledge in 24%. Over 50% of all research was studied with a community-based population. In the nursing domain, dissertations of the practice domain were highest (48.2%). Conclusion: Dissertations since 2000 were markedly different from the characteristics of the previous studies (1982-1999) in the increase of situation-related, prescriptive and community-based population studies. A picture of current nursing science identified in this study may provide a future guideline for the doctoral education for nursing.

Keywords

References

  1. Allen, D., Benner, P., & Diekelmann, N. L. (1986). Three paradigms for nursing research: Methodological implications. In P. L. Chinn (Ed.). Nursing research methodology (pp. 23-38). Rockville, MD: Aspen
  2. Appleton, J. V., & King, L. (2002). Journeying from the philosophical contemplation of constructivism to the methodological pragmatics of health service research. J Adv Nurs, 40, 641-648 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02424.x
  3. Barrett, E. M. (2002). What is nursing science? Nurs Sci Q, 15 (1), 51-60 https://doi.org/10.1177/089431840201500109
  4. Chang, S. O. (2005). Analysis on articles published in Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing (volume 33, Number 6-number 34, numbar 5) based on nursing knowlege classifications. J Korean Acad Nurs, 35, 206-212
  5. Colorado Nursing Think Tank (2001). JAN forum: saving the discipline- top 10 unfinished issues to inform the nursing debate in the new millennium. J Adv Nurs, 35, 138 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01830.x
  6. DiBartolo, M. C. (1998). Philosophy of science in doctoral nursing education revisited. J Prof Nurs, 14, 350-360 https://doi.org/10.1016/S8755-7223(98)80077-X
  7. Donaldson, S. K., & Crowley, D. M. (1978). The discipline of nursing. Nurs Outlook, 26, 113-120
  8. Fawcett, J. (1999). The state of nursing science: hallmarks of the 20 th and 21st centuries. Nurs Sci Q, 12, 311-315 https://doi.org/10.1177/089431849901200411
  9. Ford-Gilboe, M., Campbell, J., & Bermann, H. (1995). Stories and numbers: co-existence without compromise. ANS, 18(1), 14-26
  10. Han, K. J., Kim, H. A., Kim, S. Y., & Kim, J. S. (2002). An analysis of the concepts in child health nursing studies in Korea (1): from 1990 to 2000. Korean J Child Health Nurs, 8, 449-457
  11. Jacox, A., Suppe, F., Campbell, J., & Stashinko, E. (1999). Diversity in philosophical approaches. In A.S. Hinshaw, S.L. Feetham, & J.L.F. Shavert (Eds.), Handbook of clinical nursing research (pp. 3-17). CA: Sage publications
  12. Kim, E. S., Kim, G. S., Kim, D. R., Kim, E. J., Sung, K. M., Shin, H. K., et al. (2004). Trends of nursing science inquiry in doctoral dissertations. J Korean Acad Nurs, 34, 315-323 https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2004.34.2.315
  13. Kim, H. S. (1993). Identifying alternative linkages among philosophy, theory and method in nursing science. J Adv Nurs, 18, 793-800 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1993.18050793.x
  14. Kim, H. S. (2000). The nature of theoretical thinking in nursing (2nd ed.). New York: Springer Publishing
  15. Lee, Y. J., & Kim, D. S. (2002). An analytical review on fatigue of cancer patients. J Korean Acad Nurs, 32, 897-905 https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2002.32.6.897
  16. Mitchell, G. J. (2003). Abstractions and practiculars: learning theory for practice. Nurs Sci Q, 16, 310-314 https://doi.org/10.1177/0894318403257123
  17. Pesut, B., & Sawatzky, R. (2006). To describe or prescribe: assumptions underlying a prescriptive nursing process approach to spiritual care. Nurs Inq, 13, 127-134 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1800.2006.00315.x
  18. Phillips, J. R. (1996). What constitutes nursing science? Nurs Sci Q, 9(2), 48-49 https://doi.org/10.1177/089431849600900202
  19. Shin, K. R. (1999). The development of Korean nursing alternative. J Korean Acad Nurs, 29, 1403-1428 https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.1999.29.6.1403
  20. Silva, M. C., & Rothbart, D. (1984). An analysis of changing trends in philosophies of science on nursing theory development and testing. ANS, 6(2), 1-13
  21. Spear, H. J. (2007). Nursing theory and knowledge development: a descriptive review of doctoral dissertations, 2000-2004. ANS, 30 (1), E1-E14
  22. Weaver, K., & Olson, J. K. (2006). Understanding paradigms used for nursing research. J Adv Nurs, 53, 459-469 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03740.x